W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-svg@w3.org > November 2004

RE: SVG 1.2 Comment: 4 Flowing text and graphics

From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
Date: Mon, 8 Nov 2004 00:00:04 +0000 (UTC)
To: Doug Schepers <doug@schepers.cc>
Cc: 'David Woolley' <david@djwhome.demon.co.uk>, www-svg@w3.org
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.61.0411072357120.8631@dhalsim.dreamhost.com>
On Sun, 7 Nov 2004, Doug Schepers wrote:
> Thanks for the reply. I understand that there may be many ways to 
> achieve the effect of line-wrapping, but the one that the SVG WG has 
> proposed seems logical and doesn't look like it would be very 
> computationally expensive. What do we lose by having the explicitly 
> defined algorithm?

The ability for UAs to achieve better line-breaking than is described in 
the spec. It is effectively forcing a lowest-common-denominator 
implementation (i.e. it is forcing desktop UAs to do no better than mobile 
phone UAs).

> One reason to have it is that if authors can understand exactly how it 
> works, they will know what to expect on every client, and it may even 
> help them with authoring. And again, I don't understand what harm it 
> does to have it explicitly defined.

In addition to the above, it also is incompatible with CSS (which doesnÃ't 
specify an algorithm specifically so that UAs can compete over who has the 
best algorithm, thus raising the bar for all implementations without 
forcing low-spec devices to implement high-spec algorithms), which means 
UAs that support both the CSS and SVG inline box models have to have extra 
bloat -- two implementations of essentially the same feature.

Ian Hickson               U+1047E                )\._.,--....,'``.    fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/       U+263A                /,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer.   `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Monday, 8 November 2004 00:00:07 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 8 March 2017 09:47:01 UTC